The Case Against Fluoride: Toxifying the Tap

by Rady Ananda / October 15th, 2010

In July of this year, the United Nations declared access to clean water a human right. The United States was among 41 nations that abstained from supporting the resolution. Since October 15th is Blog for Water Day, a close inspection of a common US practice – fluoridating city water supplies – is in order.

The subject of water fluoridation has been controversial for decades, but a new book, The Case Against Fluoride, won the accolades of a Nobel Laureate:

Sweden rejected fluoridation in the 1970s and, in this excellent book, these three scientists have confirmed the wisdom of that decision. Our children have not suffered greater tooth decay, as World Health Organization figures attest, and in turn our citizens have not borne the other hazards fluoride may cause. In any case, since fluoride is readily available in toothpaste, you don’t have to force it on people.

~ Arvid Carlsson, Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology (2000) and Emeritus Professor of Pharmacology, University of Gothenburg

On the eve of the new millennium, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), listed water fluoridation as one of the twentieth-century’s 10 greatest public-health achievements. Yet according to the authors of this painstakingly researched expose of fluoridation’s overall ineffectiveness and toxicity, endorsements such as these from the CDC and other health organizations are motivated more by face-saving politics than credible research.

Fluoridation advocates who have previously branded detractors as conspiracy theorists and shills for junk science will be hard pressed to debunk the hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and sound scientific reasoning presented here.

In March of this year, the issue again made news when workers in the Amesbury, Massachusetts water plant found that the bags of fluoride the city had bought from China contained an unknown, non-soluble substance. It comprised 40% of the product.

This month, the video caught the attention of bloggers who focused on the warning label on the sodium fluoride bag seen in the video:

TARGET ORGANS: Heart, Kidneys, Bones, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal System, Teeth. Do not get in eyes or on skin. Do not ingest or inhale.

Why are they putting this in our water?

Many scientists oppose adding such a toxic substance to our main drinking supply, yet powerful forces keep our water fluoridated. A short 30-minute film, Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation, provides some chilling information.

Even assuming that the given reason for fluoridating our water – to prevent tooth decay – is legitimate, pharmacologists, toxicologists, dentists, and medical doctors explain how mass drugging a population violates medical ethics since it lacks informed consent.

Among the 2,000-plus professionals who call for the ban of this practice, Dr Carlsson states: “It’s absolutely obsolete.” Modern pharmacology recognizes that individuals react differently to the same dosage of a given drug.

Now in this case, you have it in the water and people are drinking different amounts of water. So you have huge variations in the consumption.

Dr Phyllis Mullenix concurs. “The whole name of the game [of pharmacology] is to deliver the right dose to the right person at the right time. And that’s not what fluoridation does.”

Any benefit from fluoride on teeth is only topical. As one scientist put it, “If you want to prevent sunburn, you don’t drink suntan lotion. You put it on your skin.”

Yet, fluoridated municipal water exposes our internal organs to a toxic substance. Children are especially vulnerable, because the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed. Fluoride lowers intelligence. One in three US adults has arthritis, which is a symptom of skeletal fluorosis. Fluoride also causes depression and lethargy, they report.

The World Health Organization advised that a third of US children suffer from dental fluorosis caused by too much fluoride intake.

Professionals in the film also cite a 2006 report by the National Research Council, which urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to reduce the maximum amount of fluoride allowed in drinking water.

In the Amesbury news report, we saw bags of sodium chloride. But the form of fluoride added to most municipal water supplies is hexafluorosilicic acid, a waste product of the agricultural phosphate industry. It is not pharmaceutical grade sodium fluoride.

Rady Ananda began blogging in 2004. Her work has appeared in several online and print publications, including three books on election fraud. Most of her career was spent working for lawyers in research, investigations and as a paralegal. She graduated from The Ohio State University’s School of Agriculture with a B.S. in Natural Resources. Read other articles by Rady.

This article was posted on Friday, October 15th, 2010 at 7:00am and is filed under Health/Medical, Water.

Hmmmm. Let’s see….we have all this toxic waste and it’s going to be expensive to get rid of it.

Wait!

We could bribe a few eggheads to say it’s good for people and then all we’ll have to do is have our media praise the idea and then we can continue dumping it in the public water supply with the suckers’ blessing

There are so many things wrong with this piece it’s difficult to choose a starting point.

“TARGET ORGANS: Heart, Kidneys, Bones, Central Nervous System, Gastrointestinal System, Teeth. Do not get in eyes or on skin. Do not ingest or inhale.”

High doses of many chemicals, otherwise innocuous at low or standard levels, are hazardous to life. Pure hexafluorosilic acid, for example, breaks down into poisonous hydrogen fluoride gas, but when dissolved in water is not dangerous. Anyone who has worked in a lab will note similar warnings on containers of substances such as sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or acetic acid (vinegar). A warning label on the bulk substance is practically meaningless in determining its safety in pharmacological doses.

That it is not “pharmaceutical grade” is irrelevant because tap water is not a pharmaceutical. Alum used to purify tap water is not pharmaceutical grade either, and neither are the processing plants or pumping stations.

“The whole name of the game [of pharmacology] is to deliver the right dose to the right person at the right time. And that’s not what fluoridation does.”

Fluoridation delivers F- ion at a concentration of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/mL, and the WHO recommends a range of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/mL. These are based on estimates of the amount of water people will drink in different climates (hot vs. cold). Pharmaceuticals aren’t active only at exact doses, but rather exert beneficial effects over a range of doses. It is worth noting that many sources of groundwater (particularly in the Western US and Great Lakes) have fluoride concentrations far in excess of 1.5 mg/mL (up to as much as 50 mg/mL), and so there is greater exposure to fluoride from these natural sources than in much of the country’s tap water.

“If you want to prevent sunburn, you don’t drink suntan lotion. You put it on your skin.”

This comparison is ridiculous on the face of it. Sunscreen isn’t active on the teeth or internally, thus there are no “topical” or systemic effects to be had by ingesting it. Likewise, fluoride obviously would never be applied to the skin like sunscreen. For fluoride to have its effects, it must be at least introduced into the mouth, but ideally also ingested so that fluoride will be incorporated into saliva and tooth enamel.

“Yet, fluoridated municipal water exposes our internal organs to a toxic substance. Children are especially vulnerable, because the blood-brain barrier is not fully developed. Fluoride lowers intelligence. One in three US adults has arthritis, which is a symptom of skeletal fluorosis. Fluoride also causes depression and lethargy, they report.”

The levels at which these effects occur are so high that they are impossible to achieve by drinking fluoridated tap water. The only consistently demonstrated risk of fluoridation is a low risk of mild dental fluorosis, which is then only of small aesthetic concern. No studies have directly blamed fluoridated tap water for lowered intelligence, arthritis, or depression.

“Hmmmm. Let’s see….we have all this toxic waste and it’s going to be expensive to get rid of it.”

If the fertilizer byproduct were not used in this way, then the fluoridation reagents would need to be made specially. The program would be criticized for supporting a multimillion dollar industry of hexafluorosilicate production, not to mention the considerable environmental impact of doing so.

While fluoridation is safe and effective, I agree that people should not be medicated without their knowledge, and there should be more effort to advertise to the public that tap water in this country is fluoridated and go into specifics of how and why it is done.

I have no opinion about fluoridation of municipal water supplies, but this article confirms my suspicions that the opponents tend to put an agenda ahead of common sense.

ZapRowsdower makes some excellent observations, and I can add only a few. Many of the “studies” showing adverse effects of fluoridation are from China, and they are laughable on their face. In one of them, the “researchers” included aborted fetuses in their study and found “poor nerve cells” (whatever that means) which, of course, they attributed to the high levels of fluorine in the water.

Moreover, the fluorides in many of China’s water supplies result from the massive and expanding industrial pollution dumped into surface waters by companies that face no environmental regulation. The high fluorine levels come from burning fluorine-rich coal, and the fluorine is practically lost in the soup of heavy metals, arsenic, and other potent toxins found in the same water. The Chinese researchers and their American and Canadian cheerleaders ignore the possibility that the fluorine may not be the agent of the health effects they observe. Even if the Chinese studies are credible, why do the opponents ignore the ones that find no link between fluoride and lowered IQ in children?

Predictably, this article cites the World Health Organization, which is arguably the most biased and political health organization on the planet. The WHO, which goosesteps in line with the IMF, seems to be on a crusade to control the health decisions of every nation–based on politics, not science or concern for the world’s most disenfranchised populations. The WHO cares about whatever its Western overlords tell it to care about, and then generates whatever “science” is needed to support its global reach. Look, for instance, at the WHO’s recent obsession with childhood obesity. Is that a problem in the many countries where children are dying of starvation, preventable illness, and war? No, but it’s a problem where the WHO gets its money.

Lastly, why do the anti-fluoridation folks always ignore chlorine in water supplies? Chlorine has been effectively used as a chemical weapons agent, and is still included in some chemical weapons. It has also been credibly linked to bladder cancer and colon cancer when used in municipal water supplies. So why do the opponents of fluoridation happily stand by and watch a chemical weapon being injected into the water supply but get bent out of shape over fluorine?

For three reasons, the argument cannot reasonably be made that chlorine is necessary for killing pathogens, while fluorine is optional: (1) there are workable chemical and mechanical alternatives to chlorine, (2) chlorine does not kill some of the most harmful pathogens, even in concentrations above those used to chlorinate water, and (3) chlorine preferentially combines with organic compounds remaining in the treated water to produce organochlorides that have been shown to cause cancer. It seems to me that the risks may outweigh the benefits, especially when alternatives such as membrane filtration are available, so I’m not convinced that chlorine in water supplies is such a good idea.

I agree that the issue of fluorine as a medical/dental treatment raises valid concerns about ethics and informed consent, but that’s about the only point worth pondering from this article.

Rady, Only one commenter here supported fluoridation. I said truthfully that I have no opinion. I’m leaning toward supporting it. For instance, here’s a partial list of the organizations that disagree with the little book and the self-serving, unscientific, biased video. Note that the video offers lots of talking and no science, which may explain your enthusiasm for it.

Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities
Academy of Dentistry International
Academy of General Dentistry
Academy for Sports Dentistry
Alzheimer’s Association
America ’s Health Insurance Plans
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Nurse Practitioners
American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry
American Academy of Periodontology
American Academy of Physician Assistants
American Association for Community Dental Programs
American Association for Dental Research
American Association for Health Education
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Endodontists
American Association of Hospital Dentists
American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
American Association of Orthodontists
American Association of Public Health Dentistry
American Association of Women Dentists
American Cancer Society
American College of Dentists
American College of Physicians
American Society of Internal Medicine
American College of Preventive Medicine
American College of Prosthodontists
American Council on Science and Health
American Dental Assistants Association
American Dental Association
American Dental Education Association
American Dental Hygienists’ Association
American Dietetic Association
American Hospital Association
American Legislative Exchange Council
American Medical Association
American Nurses Association
American Osteopathic Association
American Pharmacists Association
American Public Health Association
American School Health Association
American Society for Clinical Nutrition
American Society for Nutritional Sciences
American Society for Geriatric Dentistry
American Student Dental Association
American Veterinary Medical Association
American Water Works Association
Association for Academic Health Centers
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of Clinicians for the Underserved
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of State and Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors
British Fluoridation Society
Canadian Dental Association
Canadian Dental Hygienists Association
Canadian Medical Association
Canadian Nurses Association
Canadian Paediatric Society
Canadian Public Health Association
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Children’s Dental Health Project
The Children’s Health Fund
Chocolate Manufacturers Association
Consumer Federation of America
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Delta Dental Plans Association
The Dental Health Foundation (of California)
FDI World Dental Federation
Federation of American Hospitals
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Hispanic Dental Association
Indian Dental Association ( U.S.A.)
Institute of Medicine
International Association for Dental Research
International Association for Orthodontics
International College of Dentists
March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of Dental Assistants
National Association of Local Boards of Health
National Association of Social Workers
National Confectioners Association
National Council Against Health Fraud
National Dental Assistants Association
National Dental Association
National Dental Hygienists’ Association
National Down Syndrome Congress
National Down Syndrome Society
National Eating Disorders Association
National Foundation of Dentistry for the Handicapped
National Head Start Association
National Health Law Program
National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition
National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR)
National Kidney Foundation
Oral Health America
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Society for Public Health Education
Society of American Indian Dentists
Special Care Dentistry
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
U.S. Public Health Service
World Federation of Orthodontists
World Health Organization

Charlie – there are some irrefutable facts, tho. Like that fluoride is helpful for teeth when applied as a topical agent. There is no need to swallow it, and, in fact, according to these scientists it’s dangerous to do so.

The WHO reported that in those nations that do not fluoridate their water, their children’s teeth were no worse off than US children’s teeth.

But, I am really not qualified to debate this — I merely reported on the publication of the book and I reviewed the film.

A friend of mine is reading the book right now… which apparently has 100s of scientific studies to support ending this practice.

your position, charlie, is indeterminate. you mock the WHO, then you cite it in support of fluoride being okay.

either “the World Health Organization … is arguably the most biased and political health organization on the planet” and so if it says fluoride is bad, then it must be, or as you cite, the WHO supports fluoridating water so in line with all the other mainstream med orgs you cited, then fluoridating water is okay.

ZapRowsdower_ said on October 16th, 2010 at 10:45am
“High doses of many chemicals, otherwise innocuous at low or standard levels, are hazardous to life.”

Since “many chemicals” are innocuous at low levels and are hazardous at high levels and fluoride is a chemical too, there is nothing that should concern us about fluoride? Did you do some sort of research on this because that is impressive biology? I am really glad to hear that because if I were ever exposed to low levels of Lysergic acid diethylamide, I have nothing to worry about because “many chemicals” are also innocuous at low levels there will be no effect.

“Pure hexafluorosilic acid, for example, breaks down into poisonous hydrogen fluoride gas, but when dissolved in water is not dangerous. ”

Really, “pure” are you sure? As far as I know hexafluorosilic acid has not been isolated. Not that Wikipedia is the end all of information, lets take a look quickly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluorosilicic_acid
As of yet I don’t think “pure” is a descriptive of that compound. In what quantity also? What would be the best amount for someone that may have an allergic reaction? Can you control for that? After all “High doses of many chemicals, otherwise innocuous at low or standard levels, are hazardous to life.” And hexafluorosilic acid is a compound, therefore it should be safe to distribute to the population on a wide basis on low or “standard”(whatever that means) levels, despite the innumerable individual health concerns that might entail. I suppose the medical advice for that is “whats good for the goose is good for the gander” eh? That is very scientific sounding.

“Anyone who has worked in a lab will note similar warnings on containers of substances such as sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) or acetic acid (vinegar). A warning label on the bulk substance is practically meaningless in determining its safety in pharmacological doses. ”

Surely you are jesting here? Warnings on bulk containers are NOT “practically meaningless” in determining safety in bulk or pharmacological doses. Of course your statement is very broad brush, so it’s hard to determine exactly what you mean by that. But yes in fact warnings are meaningful in determining either massive exposure or pharmacological doses over long periods both. Labeling on bulk containers has other uses also and not just as a warning against the dangers of mixing chemicals like baking soda and vinegar for a volcano in science class.

“That it is not “pharmaceutical grade” is irrelevant because tap water is not a pharmaceutical. Alum used to purify tap water is not pharmaceutical grade either, and neither are the processing plants or pumping stations.”

It is relevant if the pharmaceutical grade of sodium fluoride that was once used and tested but now hexafluorosilicic acid and salt sodium hexafluorosilicate are used in its place, which have not been tested. One former purposely refined for human consumption and the latter are a waste byproduct that are similar, thus cheaply available, but definitely not the same compounds. Also water grade cannot be compared to fluoride grade, most obviously because water does not have the same potential for toxic volatility as fluoride. Thus a food grade will suffice for water as it is safe for human consumption in all but the most extreme doses. The processing plants and stations need only have a classification of food grade also. Are you really implying that something like fluoride is comparable to water? You might as well say that the paper wrapping on a firecracker doesn’t have the same explosive potential as gunpowder therefore it is safe to hold the paper portion of a firecracker in your hand while lit.

“Fluoridation delivers F- ion at a concentration of 0.7 to 1.2 mg/mL, and the WHO recommends a range of 0.5 to 1.0 mg/mL. These are based on estimates of the amount of water people will drink in different climates (hot vs. cold). Pharmaceuticals aren’t active only at exact doses, but rather exert beneficial effects over a range of doses.’

I think you missed the point here. It was not about the efficacious delivery of fluoride through water fluoridation. The point is that putting fluoride in drinking water is like putting blood pressure medication in drinking water. Depending how much they get from the water and other sources. There will be some who benefit from it. There will be those who are neutral to the effects. There will be those whom it has a detrimental effect because of other problems, like liver disease for instance. There will be those who are allergic etc. It’s not about the delivery, it’s about a ham handed cure all affecting the many different health circumstances of many different people in different ways. A much more sensible approach is for people to self medicate according to their individual health needs.

“It is worth noting that many sources of groundwater (particularly in the Western US and Great Lakes) have fluoride concentrations far in excess of 1.5 mg/mL (up to as much as 50 mg/mL), and so there is greater exposure to fluoride from these natural sources than in much of the country’s tap water.”

Well then, it is also worth noting that” the Ganges river is riddled with fecal matter. Does that make it ok and healthy? Does that mean fecal matter is desirable in my drinking water too? Should we add it artificially so we can acquire the benefits of fecal matter as those who live along the Ganges do?

It is not worth noting in my opinion really. It is as sensible as saying that those who live on the equator get more sun, therefore tanning beds in the norther hemisphere are not a source of more skin cancer and are perfectly safe. That doesn’t mean that the same levels at tanning salons are safe too. Just because there may be naturally occurring sources of fluoridated water in some places does not make it safe or desirable. It certainly doesn’t mean water fluoridation is safe or desirable everywhere else.

“The levels at which these effects occur are so high that they are impossible to achieve by drinking fluoridated tap water.”

People receive fluoride in many products, tea, toothpaste, juice drinks, salt in some places, high levels in grapes/raisins from pesticides etc. There is no governing body that currently monitors regulates fluoride intake comprehensively. The addition of water fluoridation today is superfluous at best, harmful at worst.

“The only consistently demonstrated risk of fluoridation is a low risk of mild dental fluorosis, which is then only of small aesthetic concern. No studies have directly blamed fluoridated tap water for lowered intelligence, arthritis, or depression.. ”

Even mild dental fluorisis is treated with teeth whitening. Which causes enamel loss. So enamel may be protected by topical fluoride application, then the enamel is damaged by the whitening required to reverse the effects of dental fluorosis. All seems rather circular and unnecessary. Also for the studies that directly blame fluoride with side effects check the book in question.

“This comparison is ridiculous on the face of it. Sunscreen isn’t active on the teeth or internally, thus there are no “topical” or systemic effects to be had by ingesting it. Likewise, fluoride obviously would never be applied to the skin like sunscreen. For fluoride to have its effects, it must be at least introduced into the mouth, but ideally also ingested so that fluoride will be incorporated into saliva and tooth enamel.”

This is just silly really. Nobody said to use sunscreen on teeth. Sunscreen is used topically on skin to block some types of UV radiation. Nobody would suggest you drink sunscreen in enough quantity in order for you to excrete it through your pores to get it on your skin. Also fluoride has been shown through topical application to have an efficacious effect on tooth decay. Such as being topically applied to teeth in toothpaste. However there has never been any scientific work done that shows ingesting fluoride, as in fluoridated water or food, will have an efficacious effect on tooth decay. Or that it would be metabolized in such quantities needed to be excreted through the salivary glands in enough quantity to have any effect on tooth decay. In order for you to have enough fluoride metabolized in the body to be excreted through the salivary glands even approaching levels that would be required to make even the slightest difference in tooth decay, would result in very toxic levels in the body.

“If the fertilizer byproduct were not used in this way, then the fluoridation reagents would need to be made specially. The program would be criticized for supporting a multimillion dollar industry of hexafluorosilicate production, not to mention the considerable environmental impact of doing so.”

Not true because water fluoridation is completely unnecessary as ingestion of fluoride has not been proven efficacious. Only topical application has shown any efficacious effect. And that is still offset by any whitening that you wish to do to offset discoloration due to dental fluorosis. If people wish to ingest fluoride despite never having been shown to have any effect on teeth, there are many viable alternative methods to water fluoridation. There are foods which are high in fluoride and fluoride tablets are common enough. People take all sorts of strange supplements that have never been proven either.

“While fluoridation is safe and effective,”

So it is claimed. There is more work being done. It will take a while for actual science to outweigh the “yes man” asbestos and tobacco science from the past, hopefully in time we will know one way or another, science will sort it out.

” I agree that people should not be medicated without their knowledge, and there should be more effort to advertise to the public that tap water in this country is fluoridated and go into specifics of how and why it is done.”

Two points out of a possible 100 for at least mentioning the core of the issue. Your solution of informing people without giving them a choice is ridiculous. Medical ethics be damned I guess, informed but no consent is possible. You’d do well to keep out of peoples medical health, leave what is best for them between them and their doctor. Instead of quite literally forcing it down peoples throats.